Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Stoobalou writes "The cat and mouse game between Apple and the jailbreaking community continues unabated as an updated version of PwnageTool hits the web just hours after apple updated its iOS mobile operating system to lock out the JailbreakMe PDF-based exploit."

When JailBreakMe 2 and 3 (the version that iOS 4.3.4 fixes being 3) were released, they came with a patch in Cydia [iphonehacks.com] to fix the underlying vulnerability. Not only are jailbreakers conscious of iOS's flaws, they're willing to clean up after themselves. The only people not protected against your drive-by hidden app are those smart enough to jailbreak but dumb enough not to patch, which is a fairly small market segment, because the usual "too-dumb-to-upgrade" population is replaced by the "click-yes-to-everythin

WRONG answer, all those users that do no jailbreak their iPhones (a lot of people) are vulnerable to this attack, those are not jailbreak possibilities, those are big security vulnerabilities that are used to jailbreak. I am pretty sure any other OS manufacturer bug like this will be called like they must be called "Security bugs" and not jailbreaks

However jailbreak users had a fix for this vulnerability available immediately right from the device itself, while non jailbreak users had to wait for Apple to provide one, and then must tether their device to a computer, download a large firmware file, reflash it and then restore all their settings to the device in order to be immune to the exploit.

However jailbreak users had a fix for this vulnerability available immediately right from the device itself, while non jailbreak users had to wait for Apple to provide one, and then must tether their device to a computer, download a large firmware file, reflash it and then restore all their settings to the device in order to be immune to the exploit.

I don't let third parties patch my systems, at work or at home. But... Both tethering and the large firmware file are accurate but no longer true in iOS5 due possibly in September. The reflash and "restore" is currently handled by iTunes in one operation. I use the bunny ears for restore because I don't know the specifics, but the end user experience is to click "OK" when prompted to update and a bit later the phone is updated and ready for use. There is no separate restore.

Here's a fixed title for you: Slashdot user fails at basic reading comprehension. It is NOT a drive-by-download exploit. The drive-by-download PDF vulnerability existed in 4.3.3 but was rapidly patched with the release of 4.3.4, and it has yet to be reopened as a viable exploit. Instead, what these hackers/developers/<your spin here> have managed to do is update their tethered means of jailbreaking to work with 4.3.4, but it currently requires being tethered to your computer with each and every reboot, otherwise you lose root. It's about as far from a drive-by-download as you can imagine and is not currently susceptible to malicious attacks unless you compromise physical access to your device. Now, pardon me while I tout how secure my Apple product is.

Considering mine iPad has cellular and a phone number, its not like its impossible.

Of course, I do actually send and make calls if for some reason my phone doesn't work, on my ipad... but thats VoIP which is only brought into play if the closest landline is at least 48 hours away from me at best possible speed, but thats with another couple of non-builtin apps I've added.

That's nice. My iPad 3G has been doing those things for over a year as well. Those are through apps, not natively. Unless the exploiters are writing and installing a custom baseband, they are NOT making premium SMS or premium calls from either of our iPads. I doubt AT&T would know what to do if you spoofed a data iPad's SIM and tried to make a call, they'd probably just drop the connection.

Well anyone who has watched Pwn to own or read the article posted on OSNews on OSX [osnews.com] knows that security in the Apple camp as largely been a gift of security through obscurity which the incredible numbers put up by the iPhone and iPad killed pretty damned dead. Oh and before someone chimes in (as they always do) that they go after the Mac over the WinBox because the Mac is nicer? Protip: The first one to drop ANY machine gets $10,000 so risking that amount on trying to get a Macbook one could easily buy with

Yesterday Slashdot's summary said the last update was to prevent jailbreaking. The article said it was to fix the PDF vulnerability. So, yes, you might expect otherwise if you weren't terribly well informed on the topic.

as a more serious remark: no, I didn't expect a different outcome of the update. It seems that Apple is way too exposed, the [add color]-hat scene has a new interesting opponent - it is boring to hit guys already lying on the ground. But Apple fights like hell to keep their secrets secret, obviously irresistible for hackers.

This reminds me of the PS3 debacle: The system was attacked after Sony removed the playground "other OS", I believe that a more open approach for iDevices (like store-independent software installation) would decrease the breaking attempts.

But Apple fights like hell to keep their secrets secret, obviously irresistible for hackers.

Apple doesn't fight to keep their secrets secret, it fights to sell you their iCake yet keep it too.

Frankly, it's about time this idiocy stops. In no other business can you sell someone a device, then charge for its use. And program industry with their "licensing" nonsense is even worse. Can't these creeps be dragged to the court and dealt with, so the industries can heal and start working according to the normal co

Frankly, it's about time this idiocy stops. In no other business can you sell someone a device, then charge for its use.

So at no point in your life have you ever seen a 'telephone' then have you? You buy the phone then pay to use it, its been that way since the government stepped in and stopped it from being you paid out the ass to lease a phone and out the ass to use it.

Ah, but wait. You only need to pay to use the telephone on someone's network - I.e. paying for service. You're free to take that telephone and hook it up to your own internal network and not pay a dime. You can take that telephone apart and use it for anything you want without paying any service - the only time you need to pay for service is when you want to use someone else's network.

You mean like video game consoles, computers, etc. which all charge you for extra games/software? You mean like a car where you have to pay for gas in order to keep it running? Or perhaps a gallon of milk which requires you to purchase another gallon after you've used it?
Apple sells you a device, after which you are free to do with it as you wish. However if you wish for it to continue to be supported then yes, you are more limited in what you can do. The difference between Apple and Sony is that Sony

You mean like a car where you have to pay for gas in order to keep it running?

Do you have to buy that gas from the manufacturer or through him? Is there something stopping you from using whatever additives you desire?

But yes, cars are going in worse direction: many newer ones are made intentionally difficult to service without the manufacturer's specialized tools. This is a trend that's noticeable else where too: for example, consider printers with a challenge-response authentication for the printhead/ink

Just a side comment, but when they sell you a car, don't they tax you for the roads through gasoline? Isn't that 'charging for it's use'?

You can use a cellphone off network for zero charge. You'd have the equivalent of an iPod touch. Cellphones are devices that need a network to run, much like cars need roads to run, and thus you pay seperate charges for the roads and for the device itself.

There are countless other examples. You buy a TV, then pay to use cable. You buy a heater, then pay for fuel.

This reminds me of the PS3 debacle: The system was attacked after Sony removed the playground "other OS", I believe that a more open approach for iDevices (like store-independent software installation) would decrease the breaking attempts.

This is an interesting comment (for once); So I will give it a considered reply (that someone will instantly discount solely on the basis of my username). But anyway...

While what you propose is a superficially sound idea, it does not bear up under scrutiny. Why? Because as soon as you "Tear Down These Walls", and allow "sideloading" (what an ignorant term!) of non-approved apps, there is instantly a problem, and it's one that all the Anti-Apple/. Users (Not to mention the legions of ACs...) must agree wi

So build a little tiny switch into the inside of the device, with a little hole for a pin to access it. By pressing that switch, you enable developer mode which is open. Press it again and it goes back to locked mode.That way normal users can be secure in their walled garden, and power users can get what they want easily.It's the approach the Chromebooks are using, and I'm impressed. I, for one, won't buy a device I can't completely root(and has an unlocked bootloader, for running custom OS's), but others m

Well, I expected a patch, but it wasn't to "stop jailbreaking" as much as slashdot would like to think so. It's not some machiavellian plot to thwart homebrew, but a patch to close a gaping security hole (you know, what Apple gets flamed for "not doing quickly enough").

Colour me unsurprised they patched a hole that allowed root escalation via the PDF handler. I would call that "due diligence", and would be lauded by slashdot if it were fixed by anyone except Apple.

No, this isn't a new jailbreak. It's an existing exploit which uses the same hardware exploit found by Geohot MONTHS ago. The exploit install software is now configured for the new iOS version is all. This is why it's a TETHERED exploit, as the untethered exploit add-on no longer works in 4.3.4.

No shit. The fact you used to be able to jailbreak your phone by visiting a website was not, in fact, a good thing. At all.

I'm against all sorts of restrictions on devices sold to people. I'd even argue we should make it illegal to restrict them that way, although for safety we should perhaps require some sort of protected reflash to jailbreak them, so normal consumers don't have to worry about viruses.

But, legally, people should be able to walk into an Apple store and demand root on their phone, and Appl

Specifically, people walking into AT&T stores with stolen credit cards, use that name, get an iPhone and a 'contract', and walking out and resell it

What bunch of complete and utter morons enter into an ongoing contract with someone that just has a credit card and no identification to back it up?! Their stupidity isn't a reason to impose that restriction on customers.

That's between the crooks and their carriers. People steal all sorts of things from chewing gum on up to heavy equipment. That's not a valid reason to impair everyone's ownership of what they pay for.

If the carriers would like to find a cooperative solution, perhaps they should agree to provide the unlocking codes themselves after enough payments have been made to satisfy them that the customer is legitimate and in return, we can cut them a little slack for the first few months.

The fact you used to be able to jailbreak your phone by visiting a website was not, in fact, a good thing.

Mostly true, however I might add that these exploits will almost inevitably exist as long as software originates with humans. I'm glad we're seeing them used for "good" with jailbreaks rather than for evil. Comex could easily have offered his services to the highest eastern European bidder instead of releasing a jailbreak (with the caveat that the jailbreak may well install a trojan horse for all I kn

Perhaps when Apple forces you to buy an iDevice, you may have a point. Until then, you opt into buying it, and you can certainly jailbrake it, but don't expect them to support your efforts or your hardware after the fact. Companies have been voiding warranties long before apple when it came to running a product out of specification. This is no different.

I believe you mean 'companies have been attempting to void warranties based on random things long before apple did, and the courts and legislatures have

I may have misused the term "root", as I use an Android phone (rooted, obviously:) ). "Jailbreaking" iOS may not be the same as permaroot, hence not being called "rooting", and if that's the case it's my fault for using the improper term.

The term "root" is to be understood as "administrator rights".
So once you have opened the PDF or whatever your compromised phone downloads and installs another program that persists after the phone has rebooted. In turn, this program can keep sending those sms or log your data or whatever it does.

I may have misused the term "root", as I use an Android phone (rooted, obviously:) ). "Jailbreaking" iOS may not be the same as permaroot, hence not being called "rooting", and if that's the case it's my fault for using the improper term.

No, you're correct. Jailbreaking gives you root. It refers to breaking out of the jail() that iOS puts on apps, and as a side effect, also gives you root.

However, iOS has a few more security protections that make it harder to KEEP root. After all, Cydia and the like must r

Do you happen to know how the drive-by PDF exploit manages to keep root, then? I'm curious as I don't see how arbitrary code execution via a PDF vulnerability differs from arbitrary code execution via a cable - what sort of magic allows the former case to bypass the security checks that the latter can't duplicate?

How often do you reboot your phone? And don't you want to connect it to your computer after you do anyway, to restore stuff?

Why would you need to restore after a reboot?

I don't restart my phone (Android) that much, but sometimes an app dies and leaves the phone in a less than desirable state (e.g., un-killable background tasks that eat the battery). I've never lost any data because of a restart.

Samething with ipad, but it happens every 2-3 weeks, so it is not that anoying really, I updated to untether the jailbreakAst weekend after some 6 months running on tetherd jailbreak and I had rebooted at most 3 times in that ammount of time

BTW the update was showing on itunes since saturday at least, I had to do a partial upgrade because of that

Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of reboot?
I reboot my JB Ipad all the time (Bluefire reader crashed the ipad after JB, back to Stanza which wasnt working properly before the JB go figure)
I have never had to restore anything after a "reboot"

Rebooting in this instance (and all instances, AFAIK) means to power off and back on. This is not a destructive process (wiping, flashing, recovering etc). The temporary jailbreak for 4.3.4 does not persist through the phone being powered off and back on.

One of my big reasons for jailbreaking is installing Backgrounder and SwitcherMod to take over control of multitasking. I have it set to not background apps by default (except for a couple apps like Safari and ipod) and SwitcherMod to get rid of recently used apps in the switcher. That way it acts much more like a taskbar/dock of running apps rather than trying to hide which apps are running and which aren't. I'm smart enough to know the difference between running and not running and like being able to cont

Is there anything that is quite as effective as bragging rights to drive innovation (besides Economics, of course)? I don't know if security on iOS could get any better faster if you didn't have a determined group trying to break it publicly.

It's a shame Sprint has abandoned the HPalm line. Hopefully it will gain traction on Verizon and ATT. No 'jailbreaking' necessary. The platform is open and easy to modify to your heart's content. HP actively recognizes, encourages, and works with the homebrew community.

In two separate stories now, it has been put forth that Apple pushed out this fix with the mustache-twirling intent to stop jailbreaking.

Well obviously not, since the problem that lets tethered jailbreaking work is without issue. The REAL reason Apple "broke" untethered jailbreaking is that it was a gaping flaw in PDF handling that would let an attacker gain control of the system.

I realize Slashdot has a more general readership these days but surely anyone can see that leaving an exploit like that unlatched is bad. In fact other companies have been chastised for leaving holes like that open for too long, and rightfully so...

So please let us drop the pretense that every security patch is Apple out to stop jailbreaking. Apple in fact does not really care if you jailbreak, and is using it covertly to see what new features might be good to add to the platform by viewing the experimental jailbreak community... sometimes not so covertly as the case of them hiring the guy who did jailbroken notification handling to fix notification handling in iOS5! I can't think of a clearer signal that jailbreaking has at least covert approval within Apple.

I agree. Considering how easy it is to jailbreak ios devices and the original Apple TV, it seems obvious that that Apple puts little effort into blocking hacks that require physical access to the device. Obviously, with the film and music industry on board, they can't make an open device. But with this "cat and mouse" game, the mouse will never win, and any attempt the cat makes to win (completely lock down the device) is doomed to fail. Look at xbox, ps3 and WII.
It's better to be the cat in a cat-and-mou

But as others have noted Apple is not really pushing hard to fix security holes that require local access. this strikes a good balance between keeping the platform effectively open, while still fairly secure.

Remember what Ben Franklin said about security. If you're willing to give up your freedom for security, you don't deserve either. By Franklin's logic, Apple users deserve nada.

I have always felt this way. "It just works" is a good way to describe the way the Burmese regime works. Of course it just works, there is not allowed to be any dissention among the ranks. If the large population of iDiots that purport to have superior products, security, etc ad nauseum actually looked at everything they were giving up just to have their comfy blanket of apple security, they'd be a little disappointed.